Court rejects false chain of title and restores land to rightful owner

AS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN THE RURAL VOICE:

In Ontario, land registration operates under two distinct systems: the Registry system and the Land Titles system, each governed by separate statutes and principles. The Registry system, established under the Registry Act, records instruments affecting land but does not guarantee title. It functions as a notice-based system, where the validity of ownership depends on the chain of title and the legal effect of registered documents. In contrast, the Land Titles system, governed by the Land Titles Act, is based on the “Torrens” model and provides a state-guaranteed title. Under this system, the government certifies ownership through a centralized register, and the registered title is deemed conclusive, subject only to limited statutory exceptions.

The Land Titles system simplifies conveyancing by eliminating the need to investigate historical title documents, whereas the Registry system requires such investigation to confirm ownership. The Land Registration Reform Act harmonizes procedures between the two systems but maintains their legal distinctions. Over time, Ontario has been converting properties from the Registry system to the Land Titles system to enhance certainty and efficiency in land transactions.  Ultimately, the Land Titles system offers greater protection and reliability, making it the preferred model for modern land registration in Ontario.

Over 90% of Ontario's privately owned land has been converted from the Registry system to the Land Titles system. This conversion has been part of a long-term modernization initiative led by the Government of Ontario aiming to streamline and secure land registration processes. The transition began in earnest in the 1990s and was guided by recommendations from the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which concluded that the Land Titles system was superior in nearly every respect.  The conversion process involved "parcelizing" land records – assigning each property a unique Property Identifier Number (PIN) and creating a computerized Parcel Register.

Today, almost all properties in Ontario are registered under the Land Titles system, with only a small fraction remaining in the Registry system. These remaining “Registry Non-Convert” properties are typically more complex or have unresolved title issues that prevent immediate conversion.  For example, unclear boundaries, missing documentation or conflicting ownership claims are reasons why some properties were never administratively converted to the Land Titles system.  Where there is a problem with a property description that is holding up conversion, a landowner must often obtain a new reference plan of survey for a property as a condition of converting to Land Titles.

Some properties left in the Registry system have been the targets of fraudsters.  “Project Perspicarious” was the name allegedly given by an Ontario realtor to his fraudulent scheme aimed at acquiring ownership of unregistered or ambiguously titled properties still in the Registry system.  According to sworn evidence from a former employee of the realtor’s firm, the scheme involved identifying parcels of land that had not been converted to the Land Titles system and appeared to lack a clear registered owner.  The employee described the realtor’s process of registering “rogue deeds” – documents purporting to transfer ownership between associates or shell parties to fabricate a chain of title.  The goal was to eventually have the property conveyed to the realtor himself, thereby creating the appearance of legitimate ownership.  

The scheme relied on exploiting gaps in the Registry system, particularly the “forty-year rule” under the Registry Act, which allows title to be established by tracing ownership back four decades. By inserting fraudulent instruments into the Land Registry, the realtor aimed to satisfy this requirement artificially. He allegedly planned to profit by selling the properties or, if challenged, to seek compensation through the Land Titles Assurance Fund or private title insurance.

The story of “Project Perspicarious” is described in a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice in a case fought between the realtor and a Conservation Authority.  The Authority brought a claim for declaration of title to a Registry Non-Convert property that it had acquired back in 1973 and over which it had since maintained possession and control. The realtor contended that he owned the land based on a chain of transfers beginning with a quitclaim deed from “Mr. P.” in 2013, but the Court ruled that “Mr. P.” had no title to give to the realtor in the first place and, “[t]he quality of title in the subsequent deeds is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain of title starting with the quitclaim deed in 2013.”  The Court drew an adverse inference against the realtor for having failed to call “Mr. P.” as a witness or to provide any evidence from him: “The source of title in the quitclaim deed of [Mr. P.] would have been key evidence in this case, and [Mr. P.] would have been the witness to give it.”

Properties in Ontario that remain in the Registry system face several legal and practical risks. Unlike the Land Titles system, which guarantees ownership and provides a centralized, authoritative record, the Registry system merely records documents without verifying title. This means ownership must be proven through a chain of title, often requiring a 40-year historical search. If any link in that chain is missing, unclear, or fraudulent, the property may be vulnerable to competing claims. Registry properties are also more susceptible to title fraud, as rogue deeds can be registered without rigorous verification. Administrative errors during conversion to Land Titles may leave some parcels unconverted, creating confusion over ownership and boundaries. Additionally, Registry properties may be excluded from certain protections under the Land Titles Act, such as assurance fund coverage. As these risks can complicate sales, financing, and development of land, landowners are well advised to investigate the status of any properties still in the Registry system and the possibility of conversion to Land Titles.

Read the decision at: 2025 ONSC 3090 (CanLII).

 

Landowners seek to rely on 60-year old drainage maintenance agreement with municipality

Landowners and a municipality disagreed over the continuing effectiveness of an agreement made in 1953 that required the municipality's predecessor to maintain a drainage system and to make good any and all damage caused to the landowner (property owner).  The agreement had been made at a time when the local Township wished to construct a drainage system along a road.  In exchange for a right of access to the neighbouring property belonging to the predecessor-in-title to the current landowners, the Township gave the undertakings respecting maintenance and repair of damages.  The agreement was not registered on title, but the current landowners were aware of it.

When the current landowners asked the current municipality (the successor of the original Township) to meet its obligations under the agreement, the municipality responded that it was no longer bound by the agreement.  The parties then agreed to have the Court decide the question in a "Special Case" under Rule 22 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The result was the following series of declarations by the Court in favour of the landowners:

1. A DECLARATION that the Agreement on April 27, 1953, properly interpreted, did impose a perpetual obligation of the Township of Thurlow to maintain the drainage system it had installed in good working condition at all times and to make good any and all damage caused to the property owner whoever that may be from time to time as a result of lack of repair or of acts done at any time by the corporation in maintaining and repairing the system.

2. A DECLARATION that as a result of the amalgamation of the Township of Thurlow and the Defendant City in 1998, the Defendant City is bound by the contractual obligations of the former Township which are found to have been created by the Agreement.

3. A DECLARATION that the Agreement is valid and binding notwithstanding that it was not entered into or, the system was not constructed, under or in accordance with legislation such as the Drainage Act.

4. A DECLARATION that the Agreement can be enforced against the Defendant City although it was not registered on title under the Registry Act and/or the Land Titles Act.

5. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs are not barred from enforcing the Agreement by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

6. A DECLARATION that the Defendant does not have a valid defence to the Plaintiffs’ claim on the basis that the conduct of the Defendant amounts to the exercise or non-exercise of a discretionary function resulting from a policy decision.

7. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs are successors of the Agreement and thus, are entitled to enforce the Agreement without an express assignment.

8. A DECLARATION that the Defendant does not have a valid defence to the Plaintiffs' claim on the basis that the Plaintiffs are trying to enforce a positive covenant in regard the land.

9. A DECLARATION that the Agreement, which imposes a perpetual obligation upon the City, is not invalid as contrary to public policy because it does impose a perpetual obligation.

10. A DECLARATION that there is sufficient description of the property and easements in the Agreement to create an enforceable agreement.

11. A DECLARATION that the Defendant does not have a valid defence to the Plaintiffs’claim on the basis that the Plaintiffs did not inquire about the Agreement and/or its status before they bought the land, and/or by reason of the defence that the Plaintiffs did not rely on the Agreement when they bought the land.

12. A DECLARATION that the Agreement is not void as against public policy as fettering the Defendant City’s discretion with respect to future uses of roads and road allowances.

13. A DECLARATION that there is no statutory limitation period that acts to bar an action by the Plaintiffs.

14. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages for breach of the Agreement is not defeated by the doctrine of laches.

Read the decision at: Brown v. Belleville (City).

Divisional Court upholds land registry freeze in face of apparent "scheme"

The Ontario Divisional Court has upheld a decision of the Director of Land Titles to place a freeze on the land records for a piece of property in Bruce County.  Krystal Summer Williams had sought to register a "self-to-self" transfer of the property, which was still administered under the Registry Act system of land registration.  Under the registry system, a person dealing with the property only has to trace the chain of title back for forty years.  The property in this case had not been dealt with since 1936 and Ms. Williams applied to become the registered owner of the land.

Ms. Williams admitted that she did not own or have any interest in the property prior to registration, and the Director alleged that she was involved in a scheme to convey title to property that she does not own. 

The Divisional Court agreed and ruled that the Director had authority to impose the freeze in order to determine the propriety of the self-to-self transfer.  In the Court's view, this was "merely a scheme to create an interest in land where none exists." 

Read the decision at: Williams v. Ontario.